ONOBRAKPOR (Migration)

The applicant, Mr Onobrakpor, sought review of a decision to refuse him a Visitor (Class FA) visa, Subclass 600 (Tourist stream). Mr Onobrakpor had applied for the visa while in Australia and holding a Bridging visa, meaning he did not hold a substantive visa at the time of application. The delegate refused the visa on the basis that Mr Onobrakpor did not satisfy clause 600.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically because he did not hold a substantive visa and did not satisfy the Schedule 3 criteria.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Onobrakpor met the requirements of clause 600.223. This clause outlines conditions for applicants in Australia who do not hold a substantive visa at the time of application. It requires that the applicant's last substantive visa was not of a specified type and that they satisfy Schedule 3 criteria, including criterion 3001. Criterion 3001 mandates that an application for a visa must be lodged within 28 days of the "relevant day," as defined in the regulations.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Onobrakpor did not hold a substantive visa when he applied for the Visitor visa, as he was on a Bridging visa. His last substantive visa had ceased on 31 May 2017, and his application for the Visitor visa was lodged on 24 April 2018. This meant the application was lodged significantly outside the 28-day timeframe stipulated by criterion 3001. Consequently, Mr Onobrakpor failed to satisfy this essential Schedule 3 criterion. As a result, the Tribunal found that Mr Onobrakpor did not meet the requirements of clause 600.223.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr Onobrakpor a Visitor (Class FA) visa.